Appeal against a decree under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was dismissed. While delay was condoned, the appeal was held barred by Section 6(3) of the Act which specifically prohibits appeals in suits instituted under that section.
The appeal under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was dismissed as it is barred by Section 6(3) of the Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:19366]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 154/2023
----Appellants
Versus
Amba Lal S/o Heera Das, By Caste Vaishnav, Resident Of 1, Tanko Ka Bass, Pali Police Station Kotwali, Pali.
----Respondent
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. A.S. Shastri |
|---|---|
| Mr. Yatharth Singh | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Yogesh Parmar |
| Ms MaitryParmer & Ms Pragya Singh |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
03/07/2023
[2023:RJ-JD:19366]
[CFA-154/2023]
(2 of 5)
[2023:RJ-JD:19366]
[CFA-154/2023]
(3 of 5)
impugned judgment and decree, at the first instance was preferred by the defendants in the year 2014 itself and the same was disposed of. Meaning thereby, the remedy of regular appeal against the impugned judgment and decree had already been assailed and therefore, the present appeal amounts to the second appeal against the same judgment and decree which had already been challenged and disposed of. Secondly , once the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed and the said order has been affirmed, the natural consequence is that the prayer of the defendants for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree has been denied and once the Court has found that the judgment and decree cannot be set aside, the present appeal with the same prayer for setting aside of the impugned judgment and decree is not maintainable. Thirdly , even if it is assumed that despite the rejection of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, a regular appeal challenging the original judgment and decree is maintainable, the present appeal would not be maintainable in terms of Section 6 of the Act of 1963. Learned counsel submitted that the present was a suit under Section 6 of the Act of 1963 and in terms of Section 6(3) of the Act of 1963, the present appeal cannot be held to be maintainable.
(4 of 5)
[2023:RJ-JD:19366]
[CFA-154/2023]
Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More and Others, (2019) 6 SCC 387 .
[2023:RJ-JD:19366]
[CFA-154/2023]
(5 of 5)
party would not be precluded from preferring a regular appeal challenging the original judgment and decree.
(REKHA BORANA),J
31-Vij/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the appeal under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deserves condonation.
Whether Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars an appeal despite the general principle allowing appeal after rejection of Order IX Rule 13 application.
Whether the appeal under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More and OthersRelied on¶27
Bhivchandra Shankar More Vs. Balu Gangaram More and Others, (2019) 6 SCC 387 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Raju Rajendra
Smt. Gulab
Amba Lal
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
